Subject:  NOTMILK - WORLD'S GREATEST NUTRITIONIST (Gordon).
Date:     Sun, 03 Dec 2000 063216 -0600
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

........From EMF-L......

This message is NOT EMF related.....  Normally I would not forward a
message so far removed from EMF.....  It is against my own rules.
BUT, this message is of RARE high quality ... and ... there is a 
common link here!!  You will recognize it, I am sure.......guru......

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: (fwd) NOTMILK - WORLD'S GREATEST NUTRITIONIST
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:07:54 -0500
From: Jeff Gordon 
To: roy@emfguru.com

Hi, Roy --

This has nothing to do with EMF -- but has everything to do with
corroborating our growing idea that "something is wrong" in how
science, media, government and business presently operate together.

 -- Jeff --

----- Forwarded message from Robert Cohen  -----

From: Robert Cohen 
Mailing-List: list notmilk@egroups.com; contact notmilk-owner@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 06:33:19 -0500
Reply-To: notmilk-owner@egroups.com
Subject: NOTMILK  - - - WORLD'S GREATEST NUTRITIONIST

Dear Friends,

T. Colin Campbell. PhD, is regarded by many (myself included) as the
greatest nutritionist of our time.

A recent New York Times Jane Brody Column referred to Campbell's "CHINA
STUDY" as the "Cadillac of nutritional studies."

That being said, here is a recent column that appeared on Dr.
Campbell's magnificent website:

http://www.newcenturynutrition.com



New York Times: Reality Check Needed
by T. Colin Campbell. PhD

Here's a story about public science that I find alarming. On October
26, I submitted a 150-word Letter to the Editor of the New York Times,
hoping it would be published. It was not.

There could be several reasons and I do not know which one was the most
important. Of course, the Times has the right to select, according to
their judgement, what to print. Of course, there may have been many
good letters that had to be set aside because of space considerations.
And, of course, they may have really believed that my point is not well
founded and not worth making (come to think of it, how can it be in 150
words?). So be it; that's their choice. Whatever!

Sour grapes on my part? I really don't think so. After 40+ years of
working at all levels from WITHIN the scientific establishment and
getting to know and experience first hand its ways, I feel passionately
that this is an example of how science is misrepresented in the
marketplace of ideas.

Here is my unpublished piece:

"Jane Brody has recently been offering opinions in a New York Times
column on cows' milk and human disease (e.g., 6/20/98; 9/26/00) that
beg scientific credibility. As a widely known health journalist, she is
taking too much liberty of stating "known facts" without allowing
scientific scrutiny. I seriously challenge her views on most of her
so-called "facts" alleging the health benefits of cows' milk while
dismissing evidence to the contrary.

"There IS compelling evidence, now published in top scientific
journals, showing that cows' milk is associated, possibly even
causally, with a wide variety of serious human ailments, including
various cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and an array of
allergy related diseases. And, this food contains no nutrients that
cannot be better obtained from other far more nutritious and tasty
foods. A national dialogue is desperately needed on this topic, for
there is far too much at stake, especially concerning the 26 million
children in the school lunch program."

I previously have had little problem publishing commentary of this type
in the professional and lay literature. However, this is proving
extremely difficult when questioning the dogma on dairy. I am not
especially surprised with this non-response, given the economic,
cultural, and political considerations of this food in our society. But
I must confess that I am becoming more than a little alarmed.

I am alarmed because Jane Brody, who has been an important opinion
maker on food and nutrition issues, seems to have a voice and a
platform which immunize her and her employer against public comment.
She has often been quite responsible in her reporting on health issues,
especially since she has virtually no formal education in nutrition or
any experience in original nutrition research. But in this instance,
especially because of her widely published views in the food and
nutrition area, she has an even greater need to be responsible for her
opinions and to be open to comment.

I am exercised over this issue because I spent many years doing
research on this and closely related topics and have acquired and spent
millions of precious American tax dollars to pursue these interests. I
have also come from a place similar to that of Ms. Brody, thus I think
that I understand her views. Like her, I accepted the virtual religion
surrounding this food. Perhaps, I was even more enamored with this view
on dairy because of my being raised on a dairy farm before pursuing its
virtues in my graduate research program at Cornell and later in our
research program. However, after teaching and doing the relevant
research in depth and in breadth for many, many years, I now have had
to acknowledge an alternative view.

I have been struck by the exceptionally profound results and
observations, some of which are decades old, which now question the
health claims for this food. Indeed, after publishing dozens of
research papers on our findings in the professional literature, I
finally engaged my mouth a few years ago to say what I came to believe.
This included my recently giving a seminar here at Cornell posing the
proposition that cows' milk protein may be the single most significant
chemical carcinogen to which humans are exposed, to say nothing of its
other questionable effects on health. I am especially concerned about
its effect on breast cancer and other cancers of the reproductive
tract.

It is time to take these findings seriously. It is time that we
consider having candid and professionally responsible public dialogue.
But, alas, this is one topic that either becomes buried in isolated
research papers receiving precious little recognition in the public
media or that is dismissed as the words of someone who has a personal
agenda.

The same short-sightedness exists from within academia. From first hand
experience, I have observed an unforgivable corruption of the academic
process caused by the dairy lobby. If the public only knew what I have
come to know, I have no doubt that the outcry would be deafening. At
least, please allow me the luxury of believing that the public would be
so attentive and so wise.

Prior to my writing the short letter that I had hoped to have published
and before I knew the word limitation, I had written a slightly longer
perhaps slightly more informative piece, as follows:

"Jane Brody has recently been offering opinions in a New York Times
column on cows' milk and human disease (e.g., 6/20/98; 9/26/00) that
beg scientific credibility. As a widely known health journalist, she is
taking too much liberty of stating "known facts" without adequate
scientific scrutiny. I seriously challenge her views on most of her
so-called "facts" alleging the health benefits of cows' milk while
dismissing evidence to the contrary.

"There IS compelling evidence, now published in top scientific journals
and some of which is decades old, showing that cows' milk is
associated, possibly even causally, with a wide variety of serious
human ailments, including various cancers, cardiovascular diseases,
diabetes, and an array of allergy related diseases. And, this food
contains no nutrients that cannot be better obtained from other far
more nutritious and tasty foods. A national dialogue is desperately
needed for there is far too much at stake, especially concerning the 26
million children in the school lunch program.

"Much of this disturbing evidence on the adverse health effects of
dairy, obtained both from human and experimental animal studies, meets
the test of biological plausibility.

"Research in our own laboratory at Cornell University, supported by more
than two decades of funding from the National Institutes of Health, the
American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research,
has produced findings to support this concern. These extensive
findings, published in the top scientific journals, show that cows'
milk protein, for example, rather vigorously promotes tumor development
in experimental animal studies at consumption levels equivalent to that
of human consumption. And, when considering the remaining nutrient
composition of cows' milk, this observation on protein is made even
more disturbing.

"The question is not whether we have air tight evidence on these
disturbing observations. Rather, it is now time to begin taking
seriously this disturbing evidence in respect to its consistency, its
comprehensiveness, its plausibility, and its relevance for human
health. Understandably, it is a difficult task to challenge such a
popular food, especially when promoted by an industry with virtually
unlimited funding to pedal their product. I know very well this
difficulty, for I come from a background of dairy farming and graduate
school training having indoctrinated me in the more traditional point
of view. Nonetheless, it is now time, both within and beyond the
professions, to begin a serious dialogue to consider the worthiness of
these observations.

"We must begin to seriously challenge, for example, the massive school
lunch program that mandates the cows' milk option, only to risk
compromising the health of so many children who are predisposed to
allergenic and disease producing effects, simply to satisfy a
government subsidy. We can no longer afford to be so constrained within
a research funding environment that seriously limits an honest
exploration of this issue. And we can no longer tolerate a media that,
for whatever reason, find it more acceptable to hide their own agenda
at the expense of public health."

If anyone reading this opinion of mine has any ideas on how this topic
might get a wider audience, please feel free to do with it as you wish
(perhaps even including sending it to Ms. Brody, who should consider
coming back to her alma mater here at Cornell to take my course in
nutrition--I would welcome her participation and critique!).

Regardless what the evidence may turn out to be, it is imperative that
we at least discuss its reliability. I once thought that that was what
science is all about.

T. Colin Campbell, PhD
(Jacob Gould Schurman Professor
of Nutritional Biochemistry
Cornell University, On Leave)


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 

 -- Jeff --   

 "There's nothing left in the world to prove.  All that's worth doing
  is to love one another, using whatever means are available to serve."


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com